Titanic does not suck, it is in fact a GREAT movie. I don't understand the hostility towards it. People don't like a winner, I suppose.

I don't understand it either. The last hour is just mesmerizing and so visual; everything before that is filled with humor and colorful characters. Sure the love story is on the corny side, but I felt better chemistry between Jack and Rose than Amsterdam and Jenny. But I think "Romeo And Juliet" was where Leo had the best chemistry opposite his leading lady.

Leo was also great in holding his own against DeNiro in "This Boy's Life".

Logged

“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol

i like him and thought he was good in titanic but i didn't the movie. i recently chewed me all the way through it again and ohh my god that movie is long. the movie was seemed so dated and toothless that it was a pain to sit through it in three hours. i liked the sinking sequence though.

and that over glamourizing of the poor life...gee it must've been fun being poor in th 1920's.

i like him and thought he was good in titanic but i didn't the movie. i recently chewed me all the way through it again and ohh my god that movie is long. the movie was seemed so dated and toothless that it was a pain to sit through it in three hours. i liked the sinking sequence though.

and that over glamourizing of the poor life...gee it must've been fun being poor in th 1920's.

For me, "Titanic" is one of those few films that just don't work on the small screen. It's meant to be seen large, with great, loud surround sound (the ship creaking as water enters, etc.). On the big screen, the love story seems, literally, larger than life amidst the tragedy and spectacle. On a small screen, the special effects just don't deliver the same punch.

Sure, you can say the same thing about other special FX blockbusters losing luster on the small screen, but I think this is overly true with "Titanic." It would be a good movie to re-release every 10, 15 years.

On TV, I mostly find myself enjoying some of the smaller, well-done supporting roles, such as Victor Garber and Bernard Hill. And even Billy Zane, when the script is handing him a bunch of malarkey to say.

he's was outstanding in "what's eating gilbert grape" and "the basketball diaries".

yes, the beach too. he was hysterical in woody's celebrity. i think catch me is one of his best though, he nailed it. gangs on the other hand, the only thing that really bugged me w/ him was his ever-fluctuating irish accent- it wasn't working.

I don't find him charismatic, and I used to think he was really a nothing. Catch Me If You Can has changed my opinion somewhat, but I think he needs the right part (Gangs of New York was not it). I like him in The Quick and the Dead.

I've only ever seen Titanic on tv, and I think it works just fine. I enjoy it, both the effects and the chemistry between the leads (though I wish Hugh Grant had agreed to play the Zane role). It does amazingly to hold the attention for so long with such a slight story.

DiCaprio's a fucking great actor. There's nothing wrong with 'Titanic' (but a film that big/hyped is gonna have a backlash). 'Boy's Life', 'The Beach', 'Catch Me', 'Gangs', all superb performances. I was watching 'Basketball Diaries' the other day and it got me thinking how under-rated he is in it. I think he's achieved quite a lot already.

-Scorsese's Gangs of NY-Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can-Scorsese's The Aviator-De Niro's The Good Shepherd-Luhrmann's Alexander The Great

That is one hell of an impressive resume of films in a 3-4 year perod for an actor almost 30 years old. There's no doubt he's a very talented actor and I believe he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest by the time these filmmaking heavyweights are through with him.

-Scorsese's Gangs of NY-Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can-Scorsese's The Aviator-De Niro's The Good Shepherd-Luhrmann's Alexander The Great

That is one hell of an impressive resume of films in a 3-4 year perod for an actor almost 30 years old. There's no doubt he's a very talented actor and I believe he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest by the time these filmmaking heavyweights are through with him.

Sure, but let's wait and see how those last three turn out. ... I'm sure "Bonfire of the Vanities" looked like a can't-miss project on paper.

I can see what you mean, but can you blame me for having such high expectations for at least Scorsese and De Niro's films? I know I know.. De Palma.. Bonfires.. I doubt these ones will be flukes but I'll eat my words if they're not (note: I expect Stone's Alexander to be better though).

I can see what you mean, but can you blame me for having such high expectations for at least Scorsese and De Niro's films? I know I know.. De Palma.. Bonfires.. I doubt these ones will be flukes but I'll eat my words if they're not (note: I expect Stone's Alexander to be better though).

Absolutely I don't blame you for having high expectations. That's the fun part of being a movie fan. We can dream and have high expectations for the next Star Wars film or the next Shakespeare adaptation or the next PTA film. ... But, when rating someone's career, we can really only go by what or she has already completed. That's all I'm saying. I like DiCaprio quite a bit, but I think he's still fighting the public perception of his screen persona that was established with Titanic. Maybe he needs to do a few smaller, more daring roles -- maybe even supporting roles -- to get back that buzz and edge he had when he was more of an indie actor.